Is it only white middle class women who are GC?

[quote Yesindeedydoodey]So, you'd have no trouble determining who's female and who's male with these two people, then?

www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F434597432786364583%2F&psig=AOvVaw2QUL81xc3SnX4vmQyPA2Zy&ust=1627283165063000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAoQjRxqFwoTCLjJ77DU_fECFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

www.google.com/search?q=buck+angel&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk02D7Suq6uhcMWg1nDuICGs5k73ggw:1627196867954&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=tWAYDCfx4MFrXM%252CYwSRdeMA_i7uXM%252C%252Fm%252F0bc856&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kToV3XPWlFLFicva4L_KejOPUblCA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-1Kza1P3xAhV3ZxUIHcuXDjkQ_B16BAgiEAE#imgrc=tWAYDCfx4MFrXM[/quote]
The first link doesn't work for me and the second one is of Buck Angel, one of the most well-known transmen who and fears about the TRA movement.

A man impersontating a woman or a woman impersonating a man, may or may not pass successfully. It doesn't negate the reality of their biology.

Rachel Dolezal impersonated as a black American woman and passed very successfully. Just because she managed to pass doesn't mean she actually is black and society has subsequently not accepted her right to self-identify with a different race. What is the difference in these scenarios?

I’m not sure why the fact that I might sometimes be unsure what sex a person means sex-based rights should be removed.

Sometimes GC people say they can always tell, but I don’t agree as I’ve been mis-sexed myself especially when younger. It can be hard to tell, though it very, very often isn’t.

Why does this mean someone who is clearly male be allowed to enter women’s spaces and intimidate women, make them uncomfortable, flash at them etc?

Yes such a system/law can be abused or got past, like pretty much all laws. We don’t have a law that you’re allowed to enter random people’s homes and take their stuff, just because it sometimes happens.

So, you'd have no trouble determining who's female and who's male with these two people, then?

www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F434597432786364583%2F&psig=AOvVaw2QUL81xc3SnX4vmQyPA2Zy&ust=1627283165063000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAoQjRxqFwoTCLjJ77DU_fECFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

www.google.com/search?q=buck+angel&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk02D7Suq6uhcMWg1nDuICGs5k73ggw:1627196867954&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=tWAYDCfx4MFrXM%252CYwSRdeMA_i7uXM%252C%252Fm%252F0bc856&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kToV3XPWlFLFicva4L_KejOPUblCA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-1Kza1P3xAhV3ZxUIHcuXDjkQ_B16BAgiEAE#imgrc=tWAYDCfx4MFrXM

White Middle class people generally are more outspoken when they have more controversial views because they are not experiencing class or race based discrimination. So in a patriarchy white middle class women are the mouth piece for other women. Like in the suffragettes, nobody listening to the working class woman's struggle it was politicised by the middle class. That's not to say the working class woman didn't feel the same way, she just didn't have the energy left to fight that fight as well. That doesn't mean working class and BAME women don't agree, it means that many don't feel able to vocalise it is loudly. That said I wouldn't say either working class women or BAME women are unrepresentated in this anyway.

No I follow loads of gay men on Twitter who are GC. What an idiot this man is.

Also tell him to spend 5 minutes on Lipstick Alley and "educate himself" as the saying goes.

Basically what I came to say!

White middle class women are still women who are affected by this ideology in a way that men are not.

No, it isn't.

I am Asian and very much GC. Your friend doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Asylum seeker tugs on your heartstrings but it has to mean men’s spaces are too dangerous for able bodied adult males (regardless of surgery) but absolutely fine for females who identify as men. And if we’re making spaces like loos unisex it makes no sense anyway. It’s just removing spaces from females who don’t buy in.

If all he can say regarding women's safety, is that is transphobic and make a ridiculous allegation that all women who are concerned about Self ID are white and working class..it is rubbish. It is always said to shut women's activist down, it has been used before..and also all women have rights, yes even white, middle class ones. I would consider my friendship with this poseur.

GCAcademic - cross post. That's it.

Luxury belief - that's the word. Tell him from me he can ftfo with his luxury belief.

TWAW is a privilege belief. There's a word for it but it's too late - I can't remember.

Luxury belief?

Your friend is talking rubbish. I am Indian and yet to meet another Indian friend who believes TWAW.

TWAW is a privilege belief. There's a word for it but it's too late - I can't remember.

A white gay friend once told me that as a Black woman I should have more empathy for TW

This is one element of TRA propaganda that really blew my mind when I heard it. Yes I am white, western and (partly) middle class but it had literally never occurred to me that feminism wouldn't include all women around the world - surely that's the entire point of it, that all women have something so important in common and share the same issues and kinds of oppression (though different in detail and degree of course) in all societies.

To be told that "white feminism" excludes black women and TW on the same basis was just so ridiculous and insulting I couldn't believe it.

Tell you what: I am white, I am middle class.

I'm a radical feminist. That means I stand with my working class sisters, my black sisters, my Asian sisters, my upper class sisters, my disabled sisters, my sisters with learning difficulties, my undereducated sisters, my abused sisters, my criminal sisters, my religious sisters, my foreign national sisters, and my gender non-conforming sisters.

All my sisters. All women, always.

It's the other way round. It's an ideology of white, privileged middle class people

Exactly. And it's the most vulnerable, unprivileged that will suffer the most at the hands of it, like the women currently being terrorised by rapists in women's prison (but the SJW's don't seem to give a flying one about them).

I wonder if maybe to some extent he's drawing on the distorted version of intersectionality that's prevalent among gender ideologists.

Not the version of intersectionality that's about being conscious things like the way oppressions compound each other, such that being, say, a British Asian man who is gay results in a qualitatively different experience than of being either one alone.

Rather, the version of "intersectionality" that means you tot up all the groups you belong to and hold them up on a sheet to prove your most-oppressed status. In that version, being white and middle class is something that plonks you at the bottom of the queered hierarchies, and should be considered a source of shame that means you should shut up even about things that impact you directly.

I can sympathise with the urge to counteract the situation we're in, where the white and middle-class have had a disproportionately loud voice for a long time and in many arenas still do. But to use personal characteristics of (white) race and (middle) class to imply an individual's opinions on something that affects them should be disregarded is… not going to help us all in the long-term.

Within that 'asylum seeker not coloniser' metaphor, men as a class are the oppressive regime that's being fled.

As a man, he's part of that regime: tell him to sort it.

Gender ideology has only recently spilled out of universities. An important part of it is befuddling the “uneducated” with obscurantist language and ideas from above. Think Judith Butler.

Of course not. Sounds like it was just an unpleasant ad hominem way to dismiss you.

Setting aside ethnicity and class, it’s striking that he sees women as uniquely gender critical (and transphobic). Surely this would at least make him pause and wonder why self ID worries women so much more than it worries men? Or are women really so much more likely to be bigots?

They make up a good majority, aye.

He said that sexuality was not static or clear cut and therefore he could not rule out being attracted to a transman in the future but it had never to his knowledge to date happened. Which I thought was fair enough, although am not sure if I believe it.

He was telling you that of course he wouldn't enjoy a sexual relationship with a transman but you had to be gaslit into thinking that perhaps he would. Which of course you both know is untrue because he's a homosexual. No real friend would feel comfortable in gaslighting you like this.